Thursday, September 25, 2014

Another year, another "Science" Fair. The winners of the Google Science Fair 2014 have just been announced. Congratulations to all the winners.

It's time for my regular tirade about the difference between science and technology. Look at the list of projects (below). Most of these studies would be carried out in Engineering Faculties or in Clinical Departments at hospitals. Most of them are better described as engineering or technology and not science.

I think there should be two categories at most "science" fairs: one should be "science" and the other should be "engineering and technology."

What's amazing about the list is the tiny number of projects that are actually investigating the basics of how the universe works (naturalism). There's only one project on astronomy and none on geology. There's a couple that may count as chemistry. I don't see any that are looking at basic concepts in biochemistry. Most of physics isn't represented. There's hardly any mention of evolution.

I do understand why students are interested in the applications of scientific knowledge but I fear that we are not spending enough time teaching about the value of fundamental research (basic science). Is there something we can do to change this?

Efficient management and use of rain in the Tilacancha basin, Chachapoyas, Amazonas, Peru.

Paradigm shifts are happening all over the place (NOT!). If you look closely you can watch them happening because, as we all know, it's so obvious that the paradigm is shifting (NOT!). Apparently it's even more obvious if you don't have a clue what the paradigms are in the first place.

This is part of the standard hype on the IDiot blogs whenever a new book is about to appear. For the next few weeks we are going to be subjected to incessant, sycophantic, praise of Bill Dembski and his "revolutionary" work. Then comes the publication, the negative reviews, and the complaints that the reviewers don't understand Dembski and don't understand IDiots.

Here's the first two paragraphs of the forward. Doesn't this just make you want to pre-order the book (at 34% of the regular price) (NOT!)?

Scholars have long acknowledged that scientific revolutions, along with their paradigm shifts, happen in human history. Yet rarely do we have an opportunity to witness such a shift first hand or to have such a clear and careful explanation of one. William Dembski's painstakingly detailed explication of the shift from the material age to the information age in science and philosophy is a brilliant and rare example. As both a philosopher and a mathematician, Dembski is metaphysically and methodologically able to delineate this shift, having previously written in both areas as well as developed a statistical method for inferring intelligent causation.

This book extends his earlier work and asks the most basic and challenging question confronting the 21st century, namely, if matter can no longer serve as the fundamental substance of reality, what can? While matter was the only allowable answer of the past century to the question of what is ultimately real (matter's origin, on its own terms, remaining a mystery), Dembski demonstrates there would be no matter without information, and certainly no life. He thus shows that information is more fundamental than matter and that intelligible effectual information is in fact the primal substance.

I'd like to welcome Mary Poplin to the land of IDiots. I think she'll fit right in.

You know what's coming next? The IDiots are going to tell us that Dembski's new book will address all of the criticisms and we'll just have to go out and buy it ASAP. Meanwhile, nobody is allowed to criticize Dembski until they have read the book.

Oh, BTW, it should take several days to read the book and anyone who publishes a review before then must be lying.

At many (most?) universities in North America the selection of a new President is a very secret affair. Students and faculty are not consulted during the process and the candidates are not known. In fact, the process is so secret that the search committee can't even ask for outside advice about the candidates because that would reveal that they have applied for the job.

Fortunately, Florida State University doesn't operate like that. The leading candidates for the job of President were vetted at an open forum with students and faculty members. One of the leading candidates was Republican State Senator, John Thrasher. One of the things that students and faculty learned was that Thrasher doesn't believe in evolution and doesn't believe that humans are responsible for climate change [A Creationist May Become Florida State University’s Next President].

Storbeck/Pimentel, the search firm helping FSU select its next leader, conducted surveys following each candidate's campus forums last week. Thrasher received favorable ratings from only 11 percent of the responders, while 87 percent said he was not fit to be FSU's president. By comparison, the other three candidates had favorable scores between 78 and 91 percent.

The FSU Faculty Senate, which represents all 16 colleges at the university, passed a unanimous resolution Friday calling for the trustees to hire one of the three academics among the four finalists.

"We deserve a president who plays on the national stage, one who walks the walk, one who won't put off potential donors in the other party," Michael Buchler, a music professor and faculty senator, said during the public comment period. "FSU has never hired a president who didn't have experience in the classroom."

Apparently the Board of Governors don't care what the students and faculty think. What could possibly go wrong?

This is a video produced by TEDed. The "lesson" is by Alex Gendler. I don't know who he is and what his background is. What concerns me is whether this video makes a positive or a negative contribution to the public's understanding of evolution. Personally, I think it's another example of a video that does more harm than good.

The information encoded in our genes is translated into proteins, which ultimately mediate biological functions in an organism. Messenger RNA (mRNA) plays an important role, as it is the molecular template used for translation. Scientists from the Helmholtz Zentrum Muenchen and the Technische Universität Muenchen, in collaboration with international colleagues, have now unraveled a molecular mechanism of mRNA recognition, which is essential for understanding differential gene regulation in male and female organisms. The results are published in the renowned scientific journal Nature.

It took me a few minutes to track down the article because there weren't many hints in the press release. Turns out it still hasn't appeared in the print copy but it's available online.

Researchers in Biomedical Informatics at IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute) and at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) have recently published a study in eLife showing that RNA called non-coding (lncRNA) plays an important role in the evolution of new proteins, some of which could have important cell functions yet to be discovered.

That sounds intriguing. Maybe I should read the paper even though it's in eLife.

It took a little more work than I expected, but eventually I found the paper (Ruiz-Orera et al., 2014). Here's the abstract.

Deep transcriptome sequencing has revealed the existence of many transcripts that lack long or conserved open reading frames (ORFs) and which have been termed long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs). The vast majority of lncRNAs are lineage-specific and do not yet have a known function. In this study, we test the hypothesis that they may act as a repository for the synthesis of new peptides. We find that a large fraction of the lncRNAs expressed in cells from six different species is associated with ribosomes. The patterns of ribosome protection are consistent with the translation of short peptides. lncRNAs show similar coding potential and sequence constraints than evolutionary young protein coding sequences, indicating that they play an important role in de novo protein evolution.

The study suggests that a lot of "noncoding" RNAs are being translated. The products appear to be short polypeptides of less than 100 residues.

New protein encoding genes do arise from time to time although the number of proven examples is very small. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that a new gene arises about once every million years in a given lineage. That would mean about five new genes in humans since they split from chimpanzees and that seems about right for an upper limit.

Now, if you make a lot of junk RNAs by randomly transcribing junk DNA, then some of them will undoubtedly make short polypeptides. There's a chance that random mutations will create a peptide that takes on a functional role of some kind. There's an even smaller chance that this function will confer a selective advantage on the individual carrying the mutation. That's one way new genes are born.

Is this a reason for carrying a huge amount of junk DNA in your genome and making thousands of lncRNAs? Is the potential to make a new gene one million years in the future sufficient explanation for the preservation of junk DNA? The answer is "no."

You don't have junk DNA because it might proven useful in the future. You have it because you can't get rid of it. You don't transcribe your junk DNA because it might be useful, you transcribe it because the general properties of RNA polymerase and transcription factors don't allow for perfect discrimination between real genes and junk DNA. Junk transcripts aren't translated because they contain potential coding regions, they are sometimes translated because they must, by chance, contain some open reading frames.

Sloppiness might, by accident, lead to new genes but that's not why things are sloppy. If having junk DNA were a clear advantage for future evolution then the genomes of all extant lineages should have lots of junk DNA and should make lots of lncRNAs.

Many genes encode proteins and many other genes specify functional RNAs that do not encode proteins. The "RNA genes" include the classic genes for ribosomal RNAs and tRNAs as well as genes for very well-studied RNAs that carry out catalytic roles in the cell. There are a myriad of small RNAs required for things like splicing and regulation. All species, both prokaryotes and eukaryotes, contain genes for a wide variety or functional RNAs.

Eukaryotes seem to have an abundance of genes for small RNAs that perform a number of specific roles in regulation etc. They also have a lot of DNA regions complementary to long noncoding RNAs or lncRNAs (also lincRNA). The definition of long noncoding RNAs seems arbitrary and ambiguous [see Long Noncoding RNA]. Some of them might even encode proteins!

As a general rule, these RNAs are longer than 200 bp and some scientists put the cutoff at 1000 bp. Simple eukaryotes, such as yeast, don't have a lot of lncRNAs but eukaryotes with large complex genomes that are full of junk DNA seem to have a lot of different lncRNAs. The DNA regions1 that specify these lncRNAs ar not conserved. This strongly suggest that many of the lncRNAs are spurious nonfunctional transcripts even though some of them have well-characteized functions [see On the function of lincRNAs].

As usual, we have a definition problem. Are "lncRNAs" just a generic class of long noncoding RNAs that include thousands of nonfunctional molecules that are nothing more than junk RNA? Or, does the term "lncRNA" refer only to the subset that has a function? If it's the latter, then we should probably be referring to "putative" lncRNAs most of the time since the vast majority have not been shown to have a function. (There are about 10,000 of these RNAs in humans.)

I don't see how you can avoid the elephant in the room whenever you talk about lncRNAs. The most important question in NOT whether some of them have a function—that was demonstrated 30 years ago. The important question is whether the majority, or even a substantial minority, have a function.

That's why I was eager to read a short review by Rinn and Guttman in a recent issue of Science (Rinn and Guttman, 2014). They describe two lncRNAs that probably play a role in organizing chromatin within the nucleus (Xist and Neat1, both fram mammals). That's cool.

Then they say,

Collectively, these studies suggest that lncRNAs may shape nuclear organization by using the spatial proximity of their transcription locus as a means to target preexisting local neighborhoods. lncRNAs can in turn modify and reshape the organization of these local neighborhoods to establish new nuclear domains by interacting with various protein complexes, including chromatin regulators. Once established, a lncRNA can act to maintain these nuclear domains through active transcription and recruitment of interacting proteins to these domains. While the mechanism for how lncRNAs establish these domains is not fully understood, it is becoming increasingly clear that lncRNAs are important at all levels of nuclear organization—exploiting, driving, and maintaining nuclear compartmentalization.

It sure sounds like they are describing a particular function (nuclear organization) to the majority of lncRNAs. But what if 90% of all 10,000 lncRNAs have no function and what if only 100 of the remaining functional lncRNAs are involved in nuclear organization? That means there are 900 functional lncRNAs that play a different role in the cell?

If that were true, you would write that last paragraph very differently. If you recognize the elephant, you might say something like this ....

Very few lncRNAs have been shown to have a function and there's a very good chance that most of them are spurious transcripts that have no function. However, a small percentage do seem to have a function. In this review we have identified some long noncoding RNAs that appear to be involved in nuclear organization. We propose to call these RNAs "noRNAs" for "nuclear organizer RNAs" on the grounds that once a function has been identified we should stop referring to them as lncRNAs.

But that doesn't sound nearly as exciting as the subtitle of the article, "Long noncoding RNAs may function as organizing factors that shape the cell nucleus" or the quotation that's prominently displayed in a box in the center of the page, "... it is becoming increasingly clear that IncRNAs are important in all levels of nuclear organization—exploiting, driving, and maintaining nuclear compartmentalization." When did science become so dedicated to hype over substance? I must have missed the memo.

1. I use "DNA regions" instead of "genes" because the definition of a gene requires that the gene product be functional. You can't call them genes unless you have demonstrated that the RNA has a function.

Monday, September 15, 2014

The students in my third year lab course are about to test various food products to see if they contain any DNA from genetically modified organisms. They'll be using a variety of PCR primers to detect the Cauliflower mosaic virus 35S promoter and the nopaline synthase terminator sequence from the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens [see Roundup Ready® Transgenic Plants ].

Every student has to bring in their own food sample to test but I'll be providing a number of "controls" that I picked up in the cafeteria and at the grocery store. Which ones are Frankenfood?

We're using some additional sets of primers as controls. One set detects a chloroplast gene (rbcL). We have two sets of primers for corn-specific genes (invertase and zein) and one set for a soybean specific gene (lectin). An important part of the exercise is figuring out what controls to use and what DNA samples to analyze. Each group of two students can do 24 PCR reactions. It's going to be a challenge for them to figure out which reactions are the most important.

(They were told that corn and soy products are most likely to test positive in the GMO assay.)

2. It is not possible even in principle to account for mental facts, such as the primordial datum, on the basis of physical facts. They are different sorts of things; therefore one cannot account for the other. Trying to account for subjective self-awareness by suggesting it is an epiphenomenon of the electro-chemical process of the brain is like saying the color blue can be reduced to its constituent banana peels.

3. It follows that a reductionist materialism is not merely false but obviously false.

4. Just as obviously, it does not follow that committed materialists will admit that reductionist materialism is false, for they have reasons to put their faith in their metaphysical commitments that have nothing to do with the evidence and logic of the matter.

I would not want him to defend me if I were innocent. On the other hand, he might be a good choice if I were guilty because I could easily fool him into thinking that I was innocent.

Thursday, September 11, 2014

Maud Menten is best known for the Michaelis-Menten equation and her work on enzyme kinetics. She was born in Port Lambton, Ontario and she is a graduate of the University of Toronto.

The "mystery" concerns her degrees and the year she graduated. The video below was prepared when she was inducted into the Canadian Medical Hall of Fame in 1998 [Maud Menten]. If you watch the first few minutes you'll hear that in 1911 Maud Menten was one of the first Canadian women to receive a medical degree. You find similar statements all over the web, although sometimes it says she graduated in 1913—as in the text on the Canadian Hall of Fame website.

Turns out he has a half-brother! His father never mentioned that he had a son with another woman.

At first, I was thinking this is the coolest genetics story, my own personal genetics story. I wasn't particularly upset about it initially, until the rest of the family found out. Their reaction was different. Years of repressed memories and emotions uncorked and resulted in tumultuous times that have torn my nuclear family apart. My parents divorced. No one is talking to my dad. We're not anywhere close to being healed yet and I don't know how long it will take to put the pieces back together.

It's not always true that having information is better than not having information. If you beleive that then you are very naive.

It's been really frustrating over the past 25 years trying to explain modern evolutionary theory to IDiots. They continue to refer to "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism" but it's obvious that they don't have a clue what they mean by those terms. This become especially obvious when they discover, once again, that real evolutionary biologists don't accept the IDiots' version of evolutionary theory.

Check out the latest post by Casey Luskin on Evolution News & Views. It would be so easy for him to explain to his readers what the textbooks say on evolutionary theory and how it differs from what the IDiots are promoting in their own books and on their websites [Are Biologists Rejecting Neo-Darwinian Evolution?]. He doesn't do this, of course, and that's only partly because it suits his purpose to be dissembling. It's mostly because he really doesn't understand what he's talking about. We know this because dozens of people have tried to explain it to him over the years and he still doesn't get it.

In fairness, Casey Luskin is responding to an article on The BioLogos Forum by philosopher Robert C. Bishop [Two Rhetorical Strategies (Reviewing “Darwin’s Doubt”: Robert Bishop, Part 2)]. It's pretty clear that Bishop doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory either. Unfortunately, there are many scientists who share these misconceptions but that's not an excuse for Luskin and his fellow travelers since they are supposed to understand what they spend so much time attacking.

The issue here is whether an atheist needs to study all religions in order to be an atheist. The barmaid seems to concede that point since she advances arguments that require knowledge of specific religions. Both of her examples require the provisional acceptance of gods because they refer to particular properties of those gods (i.e. whether they can have sons and prophets).

A Christian, for example, would happily engage the barmaid in a debate about the the divinity of Jesus as long as they begin with the assumption that gods exist. In order to engage seriously in that debate, the barmaid would have to read a ton of Christian apologetic literature. In other words, she would have to understand "sophisticated" religion. She would not be defending atheism even if she won the debate since there are billions of religious people who don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.

But atheists, by definition, don't believe in gods. The only arguments that are relevant are whether gods exist. Those arguments are not specific to any particular religion and they certainly aren't going to be found in the Bible or the Qur'an. I do not accept the premise that gods exist so I'm not the least bit interested in studying the religious beliefs of anyone who begins with the "fact" that gods exist. I'm about as interested in debating whether any of the gods had children as I am in debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.1

The atheist barmaid made a mistake. She should have said "Let's see - I understand that all religions begin with the idea that gods exist. What evidence do you have that this is true?"

Or, for that matter, the problem of evil. If there are no gods then there's no problem. Debating the "problem" of evil or whether Jesus is the son of gods is just like debating the cut of the Emperor's new clothes [On the Existence of God and the Courtier's Reply].

Wednesday, September 03, 2014

Today's the day that clubs strut their stuff and try to get new students to sign up. It's an important part of campus life and an important part of a university education even though the majority of students don't participate.

There's a club for just about everyone, even biochemists!

All of that will disappear when universities shut down and undergraduate education is confined to MOOCs and glorified Skype conferences. You can't join a rowing club if you're a thousand kilometers from the clubhouse.

I suppose there are lot of business types out there who don't care about this sort of thing as long as you pay your money, get a degree, and go on to a decent job where you can pay back your student loan.

This month's issue of The Atlantic has another one of those boring articles on the imminent death of universities (colleges) [The Future of College?].

This time it's a new "university" called MINERVA that's going to kill off all the old-school schools. Minerva is a for-profit university where all the learning takes place in electronic seminars of up to 19 students. Sort of like a Skype conference call only it uses copyrighted software. Students will pay only $28,000 (US) per year for this experience.

There have been articles about the death of universities published every year for as long as I can remember. Almost all of them think that a "university" is just a place where you go to get an undergraduate education. That's because almost all of the potential murderers only experienced university as an undergraduate.

The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a broad range of uses, from benchmarking perceptions of development levels to assigning hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages. The Economist Intelligence Unit’s liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an individual’s lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison between locations.

Modern evolutionary theory is far more advanced than the simple version that's attacked by Intelligent Design Creationists. Neutral Theory, population genetics, and the importance of random genetic drift are just a few of the additions that were incorporated in the 1960s. (That's almost 50 years ago.)

Most IDiots are half-a-century behind in their knowledge of science. They think that random mutations and natural selection are the only way that evolution can occur.1 That's why they refer to evolution as "Darwinism."

Many of them have heard vague rumors of change, proving that from time to time they do, indeed, take their fingers out of their ears. They've discovered that modern scientists have moved well beyond natural selection as an explanation for every bit of evolution. This makes the IDiots very happy since, to them, it means that evolution is wrong. And if evolution is wrong then gods must exist.

They've even developed a course to explain why Neutral Theory and random genetic drift support the idea that gods must be making bacterial flagella and protein-protein contacts. It looks like a very interesting course ...

1. A few of them might know differently but they will never admit it in public.

Laurence A. Moran

Larry Moran is a Professor Emeritus in the Department of Biochemistry at the University of Toronto. You can contact him by looking up his email address on the University of Toronto website.

Sandwalk

The Sandwalk is the path behind the home of Charles Darwin where he used to walk every day, thinking about science. You can see the path in the woods in the upper left-hand corner of this image.

Disclaimer

Some readers of this blog may be under the impression that my personal opinions represent the official position of Canada, the Province of Ontario, the City of Toronto, the University of Toronto, the Faculty of Medicine, or the Department of Biochemistry. All of these institutions, plus every single one of my colleagues, students, friends, and relatives, want you to know that I do not speak for them. You should also know that they don't speak for me.

Subscribe to Sandwalk

Quotations

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.Charles Darwin (c1880)Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.

Charles Darwin (1859)Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...

Quotations

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)
I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p.1339
The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1977)
Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)
Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p.335
The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p.84

Quotations

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.

Jerry Coyne
Why Evolution Is TrueI once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.

Sydney Brenner
TIBS Dec. 2000
It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations

Douglas Futuyma
One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.

Francis Crick
There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.

Sydney Brenner
An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist

Richard Dawkins
Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understand it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.

Jacques Monod
The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.